Belgium vs England

[Slippin cider]

 

[Esmond Million's Bung]

2 hours ago, North London Red said:

People keep saying we had an easy group (although it was the only group to provide 2 of the 4 semi finalists) and that we didn’t beat anyone of note - well, of the other 7 groups, we beat two of the group winners. Colombia, quarter finalists 4 years ago and conquerors of Poland 3-0, and Sweden, who won a group containing Germany (and also qualified ahead of the Netherlands and Italy).

Totally agree that we’re not at the level of France or Belgium - think Southgate had it right when he said we’re not at the level of the top 5 teams in the world but can be competitive when playing them - but to say we only beat ‘nobodies’ is harsh, and disrespectful to Colombia and Sweden. 

Are Sweden not a good side in your view?

Are teams only good if England don’t beat them?

Columbia were a bunch of thugs missing their only 'world class player.

Sweden are like a Pulis team.

I am very happy that we got to the semi finals, but I am not getting carried away like many people are.

[North London Red]

40 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

Columbia were a bunch of thugs missing their only 'world class player.

Sweden are like a Pulis team.

I am very happy that we got to the semi finals, but I am not getting carried away like many people are.

What makes a good team?

Despite some very impressive results over the last 2 years, Sweden appear to be a ‘load of nobodies’ (per your previous post). 

Rest assured, I’m not getting carried away...but England lost to Belgium (who finished third) and, after extra time, to a Croatia team who will either finish first or second. Surely there’s no disgrace in only losing to teams who finished in the top three?

I’ll ask again...what is a ‘good team’? Is it only one that England don’t beat?

[Alex_BCFC]

Sweden are far from a bad side - beat many highly rated teams in qualifying and the tournament itself.

No disgrace in losing to Belgium twice - and one was a reserve game. They only got edged out against France who will win it and did brilliantly to beat Brazil.

We aren’t far away from being a top 5 or 6 side IMO but I think until we get that midfield player who runs the game, we won’t win a major tournament. 

Be interesting to see how fare in next FIFA rankings - I believe we are better than some of the top ten like Argentina, Switzerland, Poland and Chile. No idea how Croatia are down in 20th. 

[Esmond Million's Bung]

12 minutes ago, North London Red said:

What makes a good team?

Despite some very impressive results over the last 2 years, Sweden appear to be a ‘load of nobodies’ (per your previous post). 

Rest assured, I’m not getting carried away...but England lost to Belgium (who finished third) and, after extra time, to a Croatia team who will either finish first or second. Surely there’s no disgrace in only losing to teams who finished in the top three?

I’ll ask again...what is a ‘good team’? Is it only one that England don’t beat?

I find the highlighted portion rather strange because in both cases that could have been England.

For half hour we were cruising against Croatia and then the defence started to get sloppy and casual with their passing and getting caught in possession, so much so that Pickford started to kick long because I assume he got pissed off with having to bail them out. Then Lingard and Ali totally ran out steam because they are not midfielders, they are number 10's. Henderson has a great engine but is not skilful enough to be our Modric and when Lingard and Ali have run out of ideas playing out of position, he tries unsuccessfully to hit long balls forward and diagonally. Sterling has been awful and has stifled Kane who plays mainly as a loan striker at his club Spurs with guess who? Dele Ali as a number 10 who was sacrificed in midfield for Sterling.

The reason in both cases it wasn't England is because any coach worth their salt would be saying, their defence is casual and sloppy passing the ball around at the back harry them and they will make mistakes and their midfield is weak and they will eventually run out of steam be patient. This scenario played out against Tunisia, Belgium twice and Croatia and it might have played out against Sweden if they had had more creativity.

So what makes a good team is one where the defence doesn't make so many casual/sloppy mistakes and then where the most important ingredient of any good team stems from a proper hard working, fully functioning and disciplined midfield, not shoehorning in 2 number 10's in some sort of fantasy team and finally when you have a jewel in the crown ala Kane don't ask him to play differently than the way that is successful for him at his home club.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

14 minutes ago, Alex_BCFC said:

Sweden are far from a bad side - beat many highly rated teams in qualifying and the tournament itself.

No disgrace in losing to Belgium twice - and one was a reserve game. They only got edged out against France who will win it and did brilliantly to beat Brazil.

We aren’t far away from being a top 5 or 6 side IMO but I think until we get that midfield player who runs the game, we won’t win a major tournament. 

Be interesting to see how fare in next FIFA rankings - I believe we are better than some of the top ten like Argentina, Switzerland, Poland and Chile. No idea how Croatia are down in 20th. 

I agree with you they play to their strengths and I am not sure that we did fully.

And you are right it's no disgrace losing to those teams, however I would have liked to have seen us play with a proper midfield and a proper number 10, I think Tunisia found us out by half time and Belgium and Croatia both tailored their tactics waiting for our midfield to collapse and Sterling to fail.

[Alex_BCFC]

6 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

I agree with you they play to their strengths and I am not sure that we did fully.

And you are right it's no disgrace losing to those teams, however I would have liked to have seen us play with a proper midfield and a proper number 10, I think Tunisia found us out by half time and Belgium and Croatia both tailored their tactics waiting for our midfield to collapse and Sterling to fail.

This all boils down to what I said - we need that midfield player like Modric etc else we can’t go all the way. 

[ChippenhamRed]

2 hours ago, North London Red said:

Very fine margins. If Kane had put away his chance on Wednesday night and we’d gone in 2-0 up at half time (which we arguably should have done), I strongly suspect we’d be in the final tomorrow night. Ultimately we ran out of steam and Croatia’s quality came through, but it was a lot closer than some of the accounts I’ve read would suggest (reading some of them, you’d think we were camped in our own box for 120 minutes and barely crossed the half way line).

As for not beating anyone we weren’t expected to...there were quite a few on this forum predicting we’d go out at the group stages without winning a game (also, take a look at the comments section on the BBC website or any of the newspapers after any of our ten qualifiers, and you’ll see plenty of comments along the lines of ‘England won’t get out of the group in Russia’). Tunisia had the air of a game we may well have drawn under previous managers...and Colombia had the air of a game we’d have probably lost narrowly a few years ago.

Our record going into this World Cup was only 5 wins in knockout games outside England, in our entire history - so I don’t necessarily agree we’d have definitely been expected to progress from knockout games against Colombia and Sweden. Maybe started as slight favourites, but history suggests those are the games where we’ve more often than not come up short in previous tournaments. 

For a ‘not particularly good side’, Sweden must have done damn well to get out of a qualifying group containing Holland and France, beat Italy in a play off, then win a group containing Germany. I’m surprised at how dismissive some of the posts are of their team. No superstars playing for the very top European clubs, but a really good, organised team unit and a very hard side to break down. They’re due more respect than many have given them. 

Fair play, you make a decent defence of Sweden. Their qualification was indeed impressive but the team we faced last week certainly didn’t look anything like world beaters.

I would also argue that it certainly wasn’t a concensus view that we wouldn’t make it out of the group. Most were predicting we would make the last 16 at least.

Actually, I would say recent history does suggest we tend to beat the ordinary teams in the knockout stages - and then immediately come unstuck against anyone with a bit of quality.

1998 - lost to Argentina

2002 - beat Denmark, lost to Brazil

2006 - beat Ecuador, lost to Portugal

2010 - lost to Germany

2014 - didn’t make the last 16 having lost to Italy and Uruguay.

Of course, the infamous Iceland game in the Euros is the notable exception.

Really, nothing I’ve seen in this tournament has actually changed that track record of beating the lesser teams and then immediately coming unstuck against quality. The difference this time was the draw which enabled us to get a bit further first.

[ChippenhamRed]

2 hours ago, North London Red said:

Very fine margins. If Kane had put away his chance on Wednesday night and we’d gone in 2-0 up at half time (which we arguably should have done), I strongly suspect we’d be in the final tomorrow night. Ultimately we ran out of steam and Croatia’s quality came through, but it was a lot closer than some of the accounts I’ve read would suggest (reading some of them, you’d think we were camped in our own box for 120 minutes and barely crossed the half way line).

As for not beating anyone we weren’t expected to...there were quite a few on this forum predicting we’d go out at the group stages without winning a game (also, take a look at the comments section on the BBC website or any of the newspapers after any of our ten qualifiers, and you’ll see plenty of comments along the lines of ‘England won’t get out of the group in Russia’). Tunisia had the air of a game we may well have drawn under previous managers...and Colombia had the air of a game we’d have probably lost narrowly a few years ago.

Our record going into this World Cup was only 5 wins in knockout games outside England, in our entire history - so I don’t necessarily agree we’d have definitely been expected to progress from knockout games against Colombia and Sweden. Maybe started as slight favourites, but history suggests those are the games where we’ve more often than not come up short in previous tournaments. 

For a ‘not particularly good side’, Sweden must have done damn well to get out of a qualifying group containing Holland and France, beat Italy in a play off, then win a group containing Germany. I’m surprised at how dismissive some of the posts are of their team. No superstars playing for the very top European clubs, but a really good, organised team unit and a very hard side to break down. They’re due more respect than many have given them. 

Also, to pick up on your point about fine margins - that cuts both ways and any number of teams in the tournament could point to tiny moments which could have affected the entire outcome. If Colombia hadn’t missed one of their penalties we could easily have gone out in the last 16.

[North London Red]

1 hour ago, ChippenhamRed said:

Fair play, you make a decent defence of Sweden. Their qualification was indeed impressive but the team we faced last week certainly didn’t look anything like world beaters.

I would also argue that it certainly wasn’t a concensus view that we wouldn’t make it out of the group. Most were predicting we would make the last 16 at least.

Actually, I would say recent history does suggest we tend to beat the ordinary teams in the knockout stages - and then immediately come unstuck against anyone with a bit of quality.

1998 - lost to Argentina

2002 - beat Denmark, lost to Brazil

2006 - beat Ecuador, lost to Portugal

2010 - lost to Germany

2014 - didn’t make the last 16 having lost to Italy and Uruguay.

Of course, the infamous Iceland game in the Euros is the notable exception.

Really, nothing I’ve seen in this tournament has actually changed that track record of beating the lesser teams and then immediately coming unstuck against quality. The difference this time was the draw which enabled us to get a bit further first.

 

1 hour ago, ChippenhamRed said:

Also, to pick up on your point about fine margins - that cuts both ways and any number of teams in the tournament could point to tiny moments which could have affected the entire outcome. If Colombia hadn’t missed one of their penalties we could easily have gone out in the last 16.

‘1998 - lost to Argentina’. In post 54 you said we didn’t beat Colombia. If we didn’t beat Colombia this time, then we didn’t lose to Argentina in 1998, or to Portugal in 2004 or 2006, or to Italy in 2012, etc...!

Or do penalties count as a defeat if England lose, but only as a draw if England win?

I actually agree on fine margins cutting both ways. We were two penalty kicks (and about 120 seconds) away from going out against Colombia. No argument from me on that! You can also make a case for Kane’s winner against Tunisia - without that, we may not have had such an emphatic performance against Panama and we may well have gone into game 3 against Belgium needing a point to guarantee qualfying for the last 16. 

Not saying it was a consensus view that we’d go out in the group stage, just that there was a vocal minority who said we would. 

And as I said further up the thread, without wanting to sound as if I’m getting carried away, in this tournament we’ve only lost to teams who will finish in the top 3, one of which was after extra time in a semi final that we had our chances to put to bed before Croatia turned the screw in the second half. 

That hasn’t been the case in the last 20 years - in 1998 we lost to Argentina (who were then eliminated in the last 8), 2000 - out at the group stage, 2004 - lost to a France team in the group stage who then went out in the last 8, 2008 - didn’t qualify, 2014 - lost to an Italy team who didn’t make it out of the group, and to a Uruguay team who went out in the last 16; 2016 - I still shudder at the memories from Nice. 

For me, we have made progress this time. It’s disappointing to lose 3 games but they were at least all against teams who will be on the podium. 

 

[EmersonsRed]

4 hours ago, Super said:

Certainly if Belgium lost to us in the group stage they would be in the final tomorrow.

How is that a certainty? Stop talking shit. 

[pillred]

7 hours ago, J D said:

Engvall did more in a city shirt than Sterling has ever done for England

not your finest hour if you don't mind me saying, take it you were joking, at least I hope you were.

[pillred]

6 hours ago, Sergio Georgini said:

Huh? Did I dream we got the furthest in a World Cup in nearly 30 years? Load of rubbish?

we had our moments, but hand on your heart, do you really think we played well overall?

[Andy082005]

6 hours ago, Joe hicks said:

Think Loftus-cheek looks a player in my opinion. Needs to either play regularly at Chelsea, or get a move.

Big season for a fair few players in my opinion. Especially now players can see the rewards on the table when playing for their country 

Rashford, Loftus-Cheek, Stones etc....all need to be playing week in week out now. And even players on the outside...Ross Barkley, Tammy Abraham etc....all need to make decisions now that will result in regular football . 

[HoldenBall]

34 minutes ago, pillred said:

we had our moments, but hand on your heart, do you really think we played well overall?

Overall, for England in a world cup, I believe we did. We deserve to win every single game apart from Croatia, our ball retention was strong, we created chances and we looked comfortable in most games.

I know jocks, taffs and the Irish are doing everything in their power to try and downplay our 4th place finish in the world cup, but England have always struggled against these kind of teams. I'm 24 and this is the best I've ever seen England in a major tournament, euro's included. A lot to be proud of performance wise and results wise.

[pillred]

2 minutes ago, Sergio Georgini said:

Overall, for England in a world cup, I believe we did. We deserve to win every single game apart from Croatia, our ball retention was strong, we created chances and we looked comfortable in most games.

I know jocks, taffs and the Irish are doing everything in their power to try and downplay our 4th place finish in the world cup, but England have always struggled against these kind of teams. I'm 24 and this is the best I've ever seen England in a major tournament, euro's included. A lot to be proud of performance wise and results wise.

can't argue, the best we have done for ages, just think with maybe a decent flair player up front you know that bit of unpredictability, and somebody with a little calmness and forward thinking in midfield we would be some side, I believe we have those players, just look at our under 17s and 20s they are there in this country a little bit more bravery in selection. what do you think?

[Portland Bill]

5 hours ago, RedDave said:

I dont like right footers at left back either but we dont have a good enough left back defensively.  Walker is the best right back and I think Trippier has done enough to not get dropped if we go to four at the back.  He is the one player I would play out of position.  

Sorry, but any right footed player playing as a left back is not as good as a natural left footed left back. It’s not just the distribution factor, it’s the tackling factor.

 A right footed player does not naturally cope with tackling with his left foot, and vice versus. 

The only times it works defensively is when he is up against a winger playing on the ‘wrong side’ as well, ie, one that always cuts inside on his stronger foot. Like meet like in that situation.

[Cunnyfunt]

5 hours ago, Portland Bill said:

Sorry, but any right footed player playing as a left back is not as good as a natural left footed left back. It’s not just the distribution factor, it’s the tackling factor.

 A right footed player does not naturally cope with tackling with his left foot, and vice versus. 

The only times it works defensively is when he is up against a winger playing on the ‘wrong side’ as well, ie, one that always cuts inside on his stronger foot. Like meet like in that situation.

Denis Irwin, although Irish was a right footed left back. He was as good a left back as any left footed left back you'll see. (If you catch my drift) 

[ChippenhamRed]

8 hours ago, North London Red said:

 

‘1998 - lost to Argentina’. In post 54 you said we didn’t beat Colombia. If we didn’t beat Colombia this time, then we didn’t lose to Argentina in 1998, or to Portugal in 2004 or 2006, or to Italy in 2012, etc...!

Or do penalties count as a defeat if England lose, but only as a draw if England win?

I actually agree on fine margins cutting both ways. We were two penalty kicks (and about 120 seconds) away from going out against Colombia. No argument from me on that! You can also make a case for Kane’s winner against Tunisia - without that, we may not have had such an emphatic performance against Panama and we may well have gone into game 3 against Belgium needing a point to guarantee qualfying for the last 16. 

Not saying it was a consensus view that we’d go out in the group stage, just that there was a vocal minority who said we would. 

And as I said further up the thread, without wanting to sound as if I’m getting carried away, in this tournament we’ve only lost to teams who will finish in the top 3, one of which was after extra time in a semi final that we had our chances to put to bed before Croatia turned the screw in the second half. 

That hasn’t been the case in the last 20 years - in 1998 we lost to Argentina (who were then eliminated in the last 8), 2000 - out at the group stage, 2004 - lost to a France team in the group stage who then went out in the last 8, 2008 - didn’t qualify, 2014 - lost to an Italy team who didn’t make it out of the group, and to a Uruguay team who went out in the last 16; 2016 - I still shudder at the memories from Nice. 

For me, we have made progress this time. It’s disappointing to lose 3 games but they were at least all against teams who will be on the podium. 

 

OK you got me on the penalties thing - I should have said “failed to progress against” rather than “lost to”. Either way, we didn’t do enough to get past them.

Respect your views though and you’re right to say we’ve only lost to sides in the top three. There is certainly progress there. I’d just be more convinced by this side if at some point we’d put a genuinely decent side to the sword - we didn’t do that, and I can’t really remember the last time we did.

Good debate.

[BobBobSuperBob]

11 hours ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

I agree with you they play to their strengths and I am not sure that we did fully.

And you are right it's no disgrace losing to those teams, however I would have liked to have seen us play with a proper midfield and a proper number 10, I think Tunisia found us out by half time and Belgium and Croatia both tailored their tactics waiting for our midfield to collapse and Sterling to fail.

You’ve been constantly scathing 

Out of interest what do you think would be the strengths we should have played to ?

 

[Super]

10 hours ago, EmersonsRed said:

How is that a certainty? Stop talking shit. 

Stalker alert.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

1 hour ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

You’ve been constantly scathing 

Out of interest what do you think would be the strengths we should have played to ?

 

May I refer the right honourable gentleman to reply #65.

[BobBobSuperBob]

1 hour ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

May I refer the right honourable gentleman to reply #65.

You understand the reason the passing got ‘sloppy’ ?

Quite simply Croatia pressed us high and our ability to split and play out was tested to a degree where it started to fail and Pickford had little option but to go Long and try and pick someone out , often under pressure 

Everyone has said for years  that we needed to learn to keep the ball , we’ve improved but for a number of reasons , including the quality of players available fell short when it was fully tested

Modric was spot on 

 

[J D]

12 hours ago, pillred said:

not your finest hour if you don't mind me saying, take it you were joking, at least I hope you were.

Yeah I was haha

[Esmond Million's Bung]

6 minutes ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

You understand the reason the passing got ‘sloppy’ ?

Quite simply Croatia pressed us high and our ability to split and play out was tested to a degree where it started to fail and Pickford had little option but to go Long and try and pick someone out , often under pressure 

Everyone has said for years  that we needed to learn to keep the ball , we’ve improved but for a number of reasons , including the quality of players available fell short when it was fully tested

Modric was spot on 

 

It happened against Tunisia, it happened against Belgium twice, it happened against Columbia, it happened against Sweden and it happened against Croatia. The reason it got casual/sloppy was because it was casual/sloppy and we were found out after the Tunisia match and teams played a high press and waited for our midfield to wilt.

Yes we need to keep the ball but we need to learn to keep the ball better than we did, virtually every game took the same route, we played well for half an hour, we didn't take all of our chances, teams were pressing high on our defence, mistakes started to creep in at the back and then our midfield collapsed and we were hanging on for most of the rest of the game.

Kane was not utilised to his strengths and Sterling was misfiring.

[Cowshed]

23 hours ago, BobBobSuperBob said:

You understand the reason the passing got ‘sloppy’ ?

Quite simply Croatia pressed us high and our ability to split and play out was tested to a degree where it started to fail and Pickford had little option but to go Long and try and pick someone out , often under pressure 

Everyone has said for years  that we needed to learn to keep the ball , we’ve improved but for a number of reasons , including the quality of players available fell short when it was fully tested

Modric was spot on 

 

 

22 hours ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

It happened against Tunisia, it happened against Belgium twice, it happened against Columbia, it happened against Sweden and it happened against Croatia. The reason it got casual/sloppy was because it was casual/sloppy and we were found out after the Tunisia match and teams played a high press and waited for our midfield to wilt.

Yes we need to keep the ball but we need to learn to keep the ball better than we did, virtually every game took the same route, we played well for half an hour, we didn't take all of our chances, teams were pressing high on our defence, mistakes started to creep in at the back and then our midfield collapsed and we were hanging on for most of the rest of the game.

Kane was not utilised to his strengths and Sterling was misfiring.

You can substitute casual and sloppy for stressed. When pressure is exerted on England players make more errors. That is not a case of being sloppy its due to the stress of being challenged to problem solve. No player goes into a World cup semi final with the mindset that they will be casual and sloppy. These players will be experiencing pressure to a degree that is unique and exceptional. 

Bobs text ..  Quite simply Croatia pressed us high and our ability to split and play out was tested to a degree where it started to fail and Pickford had little option but to go Long and try and pick someone out , often under pressure … That there is an appraisal of England's tactical and technical ability. Poor decision making inevitably follows that pressure.

Everyone has said for years  that we needed to learn to keep the ball , we’ve improved but for a number of reasons , including the quality of players available fell short when it was fully tested … And again bang on. England could not keep that ball not because they were mentally weak, or casual, or sloppy it was due to Croatia being better than them. That if you want it to be is a positive. The team is improving and will further.

 

 

[Esmond Million's Bung]

25 minutes ago, Cowshed said:

 

You can substitute casual and sloppy for stressed. When pressure is exerted on England players make more errors. That is not a case of being sloppy its due to the stress of being challenged to problem solve. No player goes into a World cup semi final with the mindset that they will be casual and sloppy. These players will be experiencing pressure to a degree that is unique and exceptional. 

Bobs text ..  Quite simply Croatia pressed us high and our ability to split and play out was tested to a degree where it started to fail and Pickford had little option but to go Long and try and pick someone out , often under pressure … That there is an appraisal of England's tactical and technical ability. Poor decision making inevitably follows that pressure.

Everyone has said for years  that we needed to learn to keep the ball , we’ve improved but for a number of reasons , including the quality of players available fell short when it was fully tested … And again bang on. England could not keep that ball not because they were mentally weak, or casual, or sloppy it was due to Croatia being better than them. That if you want it to be is a positive. The team is improving and will further.

 

 

Of course they don't and I have never suggested that they did.

However you cherry picked the Croatia game, every team we played pressed us high, the same thing happened against Tunisia, Belgium, Columbia, Sweden, Croatia and Belgium again and even to a lesser degree Panama, in all of those games we were comfortable for half an hour and then the mistakes suddenly started to manifest themselves, defenders being caught in possession, under hit passes intercepted, whether it stress or casualness it is a trait and a trait that needs addressing.

Also the stress/casualness manifested itself at the same time as our midfield collapsed, which didn't help.

[Cowshed]

15 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

Of course they don't and I have never suggested that they did.

However you cherry picked the Croatia game, every team we played pressed us high, the same thing happened against Tunisia, Belgium, Columbia, Sweden, Croatia and Belgium again and even to a lesser degree Panama, in all of those games we were comfortable for half an hour and then the mistakes suddenly started to manifest themselves, defenders being caught in possession, under hit passes intercepted, whether it stress or casualness it is a trait and a trait that needs addressing.

Also the stress/casualness manifested itself at the same time as our midfield collapsed, which didn't help.

I mentioned the Croatia game because it was included in Bobs text. 

In your posts you assert ..The reason it got casual/sloppy was because it was casual/sloppy .. Because any coach worth their salt would be saying, their defence is casual and sloppy passing the ball around at the back ... So what makes a good team is one where the defence doesn't make so many casual/sloppy mistakes

I view England's approach of building from the back as wholly progressive and a real success. A point I made about Mr Southgate and John Stones year/s ago on this forum. Error will be part of the risk, part of the improvement another point I made. The reward well they got to a semi final with a maligned team pre tournament attempting to play out ... My hats are off to Mr Southgate who is a brave, bold and innovative coach.